It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I'm getting overly irritated watching you constantly attack people on this forum rather than their arguments. Did you have something to say that contributes to this discussion? I'd be happy to hear it, otherwise, please stop badgering people as if it is your job. Whether or not someone has your respect is irrelevant and proves nothing but your maturity when you drag it out over a few posts. Or are you just mad because you don't even have an argument? Your only argument so far has been "But our freedoms!""This is German!"
. Is this the superior argument model
? Observe, label, ignore opposing facts, advocate insults as a form of arguing? Please.

Sorry to break it to you, population control is necessary, and when push comes to shove, the government will not show you sympathy for what are or aren't, at present, your "rights".
edit on 21-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


Are you one of the Types that supports forced sterilization and other rimes against humanity ?

Does it bother you that people compare your strange beliefs with the German sterilizations policies during the 1930s? You mad about that bro?





posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Reproduction requires responsibility. If the parental unit(s) cannot afford to feed the brat(s), then their rights to reproduction has all but been forfeited. Sorry. It's only fair to bring up children in a loving and supportive environment without the burden falling on society. Then again the saying goes: It takes a village to raise one child.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




Are you one of the Types that supports forced sterilization and other rimes against humanity ?


Again, you failed to explain WHY would the effect of reversible forced sterilization in some cases which I pointed out above (where it is clear that the child would be harmed) be negative.



Does it bother you that people compare your strange beliefs with the German sterilizations policies during the 1930s? You mad about that bro?


Yes, because german policies were based on flawed theory of racism, not on the inability to raise the child or deliver it healthy, and sterilizations were not reversible. You are comparing apples and oranges. Its like saying nuclear power plants are wrong because of what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is classical music also wrong because Hitler enjoyed it? Flawed analogy - Reductio ad Hitlerum
edit on 22/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Of all the questions to ask
Are you going to ask next time if you can go take a shower,
eat, drink or go to the toilet? COME ON!!!!!!!! Is it a right to survive? Survival does not ask
can I, please may I survive. There is no such thing as political correctness or a Geneva
convention when it comes down to survival! Obviously, you have never had to go through
that scenerio so I really shouldn't get upset. I don't know if you are asking because you don't
know, are trolling responses for TPTB to gauge responses as feed back for their social
engineering programs or just plain ignorant. Having someone else determine whether you
are allowed to reproduce or how many times is equal to genocide. Those very people who
call mankind useless eaters are the ones who like to hear questions like these and they
love to hear the responses even more so to fine tune their social experiments. Next thing
they are going to do is implement a sex tax right along with the imbeded camera they have
in your bedrooms. It's questions like these that embolden them even more.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


The vast majority of welfare monies aren't sucked up by women with children. The biggest chunk of the welfare dollars are spent on LTC (long-term care) for those in nursing homes, assisted living facilities; we take care of our elderly here in America. Grandma and Grandpa are not typically out on the street.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Yes, it is a right, just as access to oxygen, water and land to farm should be a right.
The problem arises when we view Humans as separate from nature.

Just 100 years ago people had five or six kids because it was likely that several would die.
To be able to have kids you should also be able to feed, protect and raise them. This is where our current system of society has messed up.
We have placed so much emphasis on maintaining every life without considering the social consequences.

Believe me I am a Humanitarian. But people reproduce knowing that if they cannot feed them someone else will, and this is not conducive to our place in nature. Human reproduction is no longer kept in balance by nature, through the availability of food.

I had a bit of an argument with someone recently, he was banging on about the "myth" of over population. He stated that all of the Human population could fit in such a space (I forget what he said exactly) and still have room for farming. Apparently this a common argument used by those who think we can carry on reproducing forever without running out of essentials in the cupboard?
What he didn't consider is the availability of clean water, the space needed for infrastructure, the materials for housing, the adequate land for farming, the medical and social needs of the people...
It's very easy to state that Humans take up so much room so therefore that's a lot of space left, but Humans need a whole lot more than just space to survive.

So, yes, it is a right to reproduce. But it's also a right for nature to extinguish that life if the food, water, land, security and so on is not able to be supplied to support that life.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. D
Of all the questions to ask
Are you going to ask next time if you can go take a shower,
eat, drink or go to the toilet? COME ON!!!!!!!! Is it a right to survive? Survival does not ask
can I, please may I survive. There is no such thing as political correctness or a Geneva
convention when it comes down to survival! Obviously, you have never had to go through
that scenerio so I really shouldn't get upset. I don't know if you are asking because you don't
know, are trolling responses for TPTB to gauge responses as feed back for their social
engineering programs or just plain ignorant. Having someone else determine whether you
are allowed to reproduce or how many times is equal to genocide. Those very people who
call mankind useless eaters are the ones who like to hear questions like these and they
love to hear the responses even more so to fine tune their social experiments. Next thing
they are going to do is implement a sex tax right along with the imbeded camera they have
in your bedrooms. It's questions like these that embolden them even more.


I'll make sure not to use your opinion in my report to the TPTB.

k...



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


The vast majority of welfare monies aren't sucked up by women with children. The biggest chunk of the welfare dollars are spent on LTC (long-term care) for those in nursing homes, assisted living facilities; we take care of our elderly here in America. Grandma and Grandpa are not typically out on the street.


Facts?

Please show me.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
So, yes, it is a right to reproduce. But it's also a right for nature to extinguish that life if the food, water, land, security and so on is not able to be supplied to support that life.


I don't subscribe to this as you are talking about extinguishing life that already exists! You can't have it both ways. What sense does it make to say that one has a right to reproduce but that someone else can take that life when it becomes burdensome on our environment?

My belief is that reproduction should be guided and those who are able to care for a child adequately should be given that permission. There is no harm in preventing a child from even being conceived only to have it killed through abortion or born into a world with very limited possibilities and where the chance of negative behavior is amplified.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
i do not think reproduction is a right that is given to somebody, we are all born with the parts to reproduce therefore it is a universal right everybody is born with, its not something anybody else should decide but the person who's life it is.

however i do think it should be taken away if the parents are irresponsible at raising their kids, people get banned in some cases for life from keep pets because they do not look after them, the same type of thing should be done with parents raising kids.

i am for taking away the right if you are a crap parent, rather than giving people the right, whom somebody else deems fit to be a parent, because its impossible to say who are good parents and who are not untill each person if they so wish becomes a parent to begin with.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


so what if you have all the things you need to raise a child, a lovely house, excellent job etc etc, and your 6 months into parenthood, when the boss phones to inform you, you have lost your job?

then what? you are a great parent but now you are out of work, does somebody turn up at that instant and snatch the baby from the mother? are the parents then rushed to a hospital to be sterilized?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by pikypiky
 


so what if you have all the things you need to raise a child, a lovely house, excellent job etc etc, and your 6 months into parenthood, when the boss phones to inform you, you have lost your job?

then what? you are a great parent but now you are out of work, does somebody turn up at that instant and snatch the baby from the mother? are the parents then rushed to a hospital to be sterilized?



No, birth control begins at the onset puberty. Permission to reproduce is allowed under certain conditions. If one were to lose a job after being allowed to reproduce, of course the child would NOT be taken from them.

You, like many, like to assume the absolute worst in these cases.

However, your income level would be a factor in if a couple would be allowed to have another child.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
i do not think reproduction is a right that is given to somebody, we are all born with the parts to reproduce therefore it is a universal right everybody is born with, its not something anybody else should decide but the person who's life it is.


Why does a child have to wait before the parent has their kid taken away when it would have been better to have never allowed that parent to have a child to begin with?

And not ALL of us are born with this ability. A small percentage of the population will never be allowed to have children via natural methods. You have the ability to urinate and defecate, but can you do that wherever you want? Are their laws or guidelines that tell you where it is appropriate to do those? And why aren't you...mainly because of health laws.

So think of guided reproduction as another necessary for a healthy society.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

So think of guided reproduction as another necessary for a healthy society.


Think of jailing those who advocate forced sterilization as a necessity for a healthy society.

Or maybe make them see a doctor about their problem via court order.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 





Think of jailing those who advocate forced sterilization as a necessity for a healthy society. Or maybe make them see a doctor about their problem via court order.


When you prove that procreation is a basic human right, then by all means you can take legal action to silence anyone who would wish to restrict it. Just as we do with someone who is incinting violence, for example. But procreation is not a a basic human right, so you will fail.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

So think of guided reproduction as another necessary for a healthy society.


Think of jailing those who advocate forced sterilization as a necessity for a healthy society.

Or maybe make them see a doctor about their problem via court order.


Wow, perhaps you should just stop responding as you offer nothing to the discussion except blatantly hateful remarks. You've indicated that people who think or believe this way should be: jailed, have violent action taken against them, likened to Nazi's, ordered by the court to see a psychiatrist, etc..

I have not once advocated violence. It is YOU who is doing so.

And discussions like this SHOULD be in the public discourse. But, in your fantasy world, anyone who doesn't believe as you do should be incarcerated or ordered to see a shrink?


If the ignore feature were still available, you'd be on it.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
They stem from society recognising them and granting them to you. It is not ideal, but this is reality and it is the best we have.


Then it seems we are in agreement on this point.

Both of us believe that there are no self-evident ''rights'', and that there are only rules and regulations that allow, restrict or prohibit activities among the general populace, that are defined and arbitrated by the leaders of society.

The fact that we appear to be in agreement over this fact, makes our whole discussion on whether procreation is a ''right'' or a ''privilege'', rather moot.


Tell me then, what makes you disagree with the fact that reproduction is a right, as defined by the current consensus in modern society ?

You say that rights come from society recognising and giving them to you, yet no modern society has ever seriously, officially restricted the right of their citizens to breed.

With the above in mind, how come you disagree with the societal definition of ''rights'' on this particular issue ?


Originally posted by Maslo
Because this one violates the right of another person, the future child. Thus it should be illegal, like plenty of other selfish acts involving two people are, for example stealing, abuse etc.


This is nonsensical.

The child doesn't come into being until it's born.

How can you violate the rights of someone that doesn't exist ?

The rights of that child can only be violated after it's born; ergo, conceiving the child cannot have impact on a non-existent person.


Originally posted by Maslo
All I am saying is that mentally stable people can have babies, mentally unstable should not. Whether the reason is genetic or something other is irrelevant to me.


Define ''mentally stable''. Would you include people that suffer from depression, OCD, personality disorders, ADHD etc. as ''mentally unstable'' ?

I would say that the majority of people have some recurring mental thought processes, that are currently described by society as ''mental illness''.

And how can you actually test whether someone is mentally stable or not ?


Originally posted by Maslo
You just said it - correct and incorrect ways to raise a child are determined by parents and the law of the land. I propose to include my ideas in the law of the land.


But as far as I can see, your ideals on what qualities people should have to procreate, are intangible concepts that would be impractical and impossible to enforce by law.


Originally posted by Maslo
Right to personal liberty, property, safety and right to grow up in good conditions (!). There may be more, but this is from the top of my head.

Right to procreate? I do not recognize such a right. Why should there be such a right?


Right to spread your genetic material, and take part in the fundamental essence of life ?
Ie. Reproducing and furthering existence.


Originally posted by Maslo
Just use a combination of education, fines, tax cuts and increases, mandatory birth control pills etc. There are plenty of options besides sterilization.


That is completely different to sterilisation. What you are suggesting, is a way of discouraging the poor from having children, which is a very materialistic way to look at things.

None of the above factors would have any impact on drug addicts, and the poorest members of society having children, thereby making your suggestions pretty irrelevant.

Better education and awareness on this subject, is a good idea. But, poorer people don't usually pay taxes ( if they are on state-provided benefits ), so that wouldn't work.

Mandatory birth control pills will not stop people having children, if they want to have them.

Fines are counter-productive, because the poorer members of society won't be able to pay them, and if they can, then that will punish the child, by making it be brought up in even more financially difficult surroundings.


Birth rates are declining in the West, and the population getting older, so any measures to discourage people having children will have an overall negative impact on the demographics of society ( in terms of age ), and the future workforce.

I guess we'll have to encourage more of those Romanian immigrants to set up camps in our countries.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





Tell me then, what makes you disagree with the fact that reproduction is a right, as defined by the current consensus in modern society ? You say that rights come from society recognising and giving them to you, yet no modern society has ever seriously, officially restricted the right of their citizens to breed. With the above in mind, how come you disagree with the societal definition of ''rights'' on this particular issue ?


China does restrict right to procreate, and it was proposed or implemented in lots of countries in the last 100 years.

Rights in real world come from society recognising them. But these rights are different around the world and in history, so it is evident that not one of them is ideal. Some are closer to ideal, some are farther. It is possible that so called "right" to procreate should not be a right.




This is nonsensical. The child doesn't come into being until it's born. How can you violate the rights of someone that doesn't exist ? The rights of that child can only be violated after it's born; ergo, conceiving the child cannot have impact on a non-existent person.


Of course you can violate rights of someone that is not born. Why should time period of someones life have any effect on his/her rights? It is absurd.




Define ''mentally stable''. Would you include people that suffer from depression, OCD, personality disorders, ADHD etc. as ''mentally unstable'' ? I would say that the majority of people have some recurring mental thought processes, that are currently described by society as ''mental illness''. And how can you actually test whether someone is mentally stable or not ?


I dont have to define mentally stable, it was already defined long ago. It is routinely used in legal practice today, havent you noticed?




But as far as I can see, your ideals on what qualities people should have to procreate, are intangible concepts that would be impractical and impossible to enforce by law.


No, they are practical and tangible. Sufficient mental health (routinely used in courts of law today), sufficient material wealth (routinely used for example to quialify for welfare today), employment, age, etc.

These are concrete concepts that can easiliy be made into law.




Right to spread your genetic material, and take part in the fundamental essence of life ? Ie. Reproducing and furthering existence.


Again, such a right should not exist. It should be a privilege.




That is completely different to sterilisation. What you are suggesting, is a way of discouraging the poor from having children, which is a very materialistic way to look at things.


It is not different, all are a restriction of procreation. But sterilization is also an option, I have no yet made up my mind on the best method of enforcement of this law. And yes, I am a materialist, and proud of it.






Birth rates are declining in the West, and the population getting older, so any measures to discourage people having children will have an overall negative impact on the demographics of society ( in terms of age ), and the future workforce.


Demographics does not concern me much. With the use of technology, every new generation produces more wealth than its predecessors. We do not need lots of children. We need quality over quantity. There is enough workforce in the West, otherwise unemployment would not be an issue. There is a shortage of highly educated people only.




I guess we'll have to encourage more of those Romanian immigrants to set up camps in our countries.


Oh yeah, if you want to turn the West into a third world hellhole.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Does it bother you that people compare your strange beliefs with the German sterilizations policies during the 1930s? You mad about that bro?


You should look up american history of that era.

Your birthing rights will be controlled whether you like it or not. Just because you think you have freewill in it, does not mean you do.

I would think its going to be clandestine like so many things with taking away peoples rights, and free will.




top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join